Every part of
'Earth not a Globe' that I've read is comprised of only obvious errors and nonsense (sprinkled in an ocean of waffling), but any discussion of that has so far been lost in a big back and forth about whether Parallax had a real doctorate or not.
Have a look at this page. To take the very simplest example with minimal ambiguity or misunderstanding. Specifically at this:
When sitting in a rapidly-moving railway carriage, let a spring-gun 1 be fired forward, or in the direction in which the train is moving. Again, let the same gun be fired, but in the opposite direction; and it will be found that the ball or other projectile will always go farther in the first case than in the latter.
This doesn't happen, of course.
If you've ever been on a moving train, things tend not to leap off the table away from you and your drink
usually doesn't spill out of the front of your cup due to the speed it (but not your cup!) has acquired from the train moving at 100mph. They served drinks on
Concorde for god's sake.
Most importantly, the implication is that he actually performed this experiment -and trains were far from uncommon in the 19th century- yet educated people in the
18th century would have found his suggestion laughable - as we do now.
Is he educated?
Is he being honest?
He cannot be both, unless I'm missing something.
In fact, -on reflection- his claims that motion (rather than acceleration) would create measurable effects in this way gel
very poorly with the idea that earth is a flat disk moving upwards at almost the speed of light. But that's another thread, I suppose.